Blockchain issue: scaling.

[annamania]

The more popular blockchain becomes, the longer the chains – which causes longer transaction validation times. The current transaction delays with popular blockchains make crypto currencies unusable for many use-cases. What do you think about that? Any example of the technology that can change that?

[1715510782]

1715510782

[Zin-Zang]

The more popular blockchain becomes, the longer the chains – which causes longer transaction validation times. The current transaction delays with popular blockchains make crypto currencies unusable for many use-cases. What do you think about that? Any example of the technology that can change that?

The Problem is Bitcoin uses Variable transaction fees, some miners artificially spam transactions to increase the fees so they make a larger profit.

Simple fix to this is remove the variable fee system and replaced it with a fixed fee system, therefore the miners have no incentive to spam the network as the fees will not go higher. Also this would allow all transactions to be processed in the order received which would increase speed for most as no longer having to wait for a miner to choose them.

Many other coins already do this. 


 

[Marlo Stanfield]

The more popular blockchain becomes, the longer the chains – which causes longer transaction validation times. The current transaction delays with popular blockchains make crypto currencies unusable for many use-cases. What do you think about that? Any example of the technology that can change that?

The size of the blockchain affects the resources that it takes to run a node. But I don't see what you mean about the size of the chain causing loner validation times? The target time between blocks is set separately and difficulty is adjusted automatically by an algorithm. Also, the longer amount of time passes, the more secure the transaction is, as it quickly becomes cost prohibitive for an attacker.

[YuginKadoya]

No need to worry about it I think even though the transaction fees and the speed of each transaction made will be very slow and have a much larger fees the services with bitcoin is still functional even with the delays in the transaction, Even though lightning transaction doesn't have much change in the system the important part of it is the functionality of the services that I think developers are still enhancing and working on it, And I really think this is a common issue that some user letting it just slip.

[BrewMaster]

that is exactly why the second layer solution was introduced.

with second layer such as Lightning Network you don't have to worry about things such as scaling and size of the blockchain and the limitations that entails. of course it is not the solution for everything  and it is not perfect but it is the best thing we can have and it will help the scaling of bitcoin so much that it opens up a lot of opportunities.

[sponge_bob13]

The longer the chain becomes the slower the transaction gets. To solve that problem we use the lightening technology. This technology takes the responsibility and makes the transaction faster.

[uncleduckerr]

The longer the chain becomes the slower the transaction gets. To solve that problem we use the lightening technology. This technology takes the responsibility and makes the transaction faster.

This is true but also do realize that scaling will be an ever present issue with blockchains. Once you get LN and the capacity to have transactions are raised, people will use that space instantly. Then people will say "LN is stuck and scaling issues are happening again." That is why we will never be free from this scaling debate, I implore you to forget about this and move on to something that is of real concern for Bitcoin.

[dothebeats]

Scaling, for the mean time, is already solved with the advent of SegWit that reshapes how a block stores data and LN that's an alternative channel in which transactions can pass through. With these two, short and medium-term scaling is already secured, I'm pretty sure that the network can already handle significant weight in terms of transaction volume and whatnot, and only artificially created spam transactions can overload the network right now which, I think isn't really a problem since it rarely happens. We're already on our way to solve the scaling issue, and we just need to tweak it further in order to not get gamed due to loopholes.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Isn't it obvious that all full nodes will verify all transaction/block and that requires computational power. This could cause slow propagation if there's no limit on block size/weight and the block size is very big since the time required to verify that block will be long.

Yes, that is true but that doesn't have anything to do with the 'length' of the chain as the OP was saying. Definitely if individual blocks are too large then scaling becomes a real concern. Storage is an issue, but it's probably not even in the top 5 concerns for scaling.

[avoxosuccesful]

I think despite the fact that the exchange expenses and the speed of every exchange made will be moderate and have a significantly bigger charges the administrations with bitcoin is as yet useful even with the deferrals in the exchange, Even however lightning exchange doesn't have much change in the framework its imperative piece is the usefulness of the administrations that I think designers are as yet improving and taking a shot at it, And I truly think this is a typical issue that some client letting it simply fade

[mary_55]

Yes that is indeed a limitation for blockchain and I still don't know what can be the solution to it. Please anyone share it with us what can be the remedy to it.

[squatter]

that is exactly why the second layer solution was introduced.

with second layer such as Lightning Network you don't have to worry about things such as scaling and size of the blockchain and the limitations that entails.

Not entirely true, since it takes on-chain transactions to open, close and fund Lightning channels. LN should certainly make the overall transaction load more scalable, but it doesn't eliminate on-chain volume at all. It adds to it.

I'm personally more excited about sidechains, if they're ever deemed secure enough. I prefer to keep my funds offline, which doesn't really work for LN.

[croptodic]

Blockchain tech is really changing the business concept also this tech is so useful and many companies are using this tech based on this there is many solutions to reduce fees also this but this gives so much facilities also this it makes easier for transactions.

[TwisterPipister]

Now many hope that lightning network will fundamentally change the situation, and it will be possible to easily buy coffee for bitcoins, I also hope so, but if it does not work, if the network is not easy to use, I mean how will the interface be built? It will be necessary to open channels with nodes, then close them when needed, in general I think that if it does not work then Bitcoin may stop being number one, and its place will be occupied by the Etherium.

[Pursuer]

any system, technology, ... will always have certain restrictions and benefits at the same time. as long as the benefits are more than those restrictions we consider that system to be a good one. and restrictions can always be bent. we can work around them and find solutions for them.

in case of blockchain technology you are correct, it has restrictions for scaling but it is a new technology and we are working on it to make it better, more efficient and improve it every day. you will never be able to find a solution that is 100% perfect. you will have to accept the best thing which has the least amount of problems.

[odolvlobo]

The more popular blockchain becomes, the longer the chains – which causes longer transaction validation times. The current transaction delays with popular blockchains make crypto currencies unusable for many use-cases. What do you think about that? Any example of the technology that can change that?

That is simply not true. I'm surprised that only one other person has mentioned that the OP is wrong. The transaction validation time has nothing to with the size or length of the chain.

The validation time of a transaction depends on the the block interval (which is fixed), the maximum size of a block, the number of transactions waiting to be confirmed, and the fee paid compared to the fee paid by other unconfirmed transactions.

[barsametu01]

Scaling is one of the biggest drawbacks of Bitcoin. To overcome this, Lightening networks were invented. Lightening networks solve this issue to a large extent.

[hatshepsut93]

that is exactly why the second layer solution was introduced.

with second layer such as Lightning Network you don't have to worry about things such as scaling and size of the blockchain and the limitations that entails.

Not entirely true, since it takes on-chain transactions to open, close and fund Lightning channels. LN should certainly make the overall transaction load more scalable, but it doesn't eliminate on-chain volume at all. It adds to it.

I'm personally more excited about sidechains, if they're ever deemed secure enough. I prefer to keep my funds offline, which doesn't really work for LN.

LN will be used as your daily payment method so you'd only have to keep smaller amounts there, in some distant future it might be quite expensive to open your first channel, because on-chain fees will get very high due to high demand, but the beauty of LN is that you don't really need to close your channel, you can keep it open for years and refill it when needed. So, it might look bad that you have to pay a huge entry price, when compared with banks, but in the long run it will be cheaper due to lower fees and no counterparty risks.

[Marlo Stanfield]

that is exactly why the second layer solution was introduced.

with second layer such as Lightning Network you don't have to worry about things such as scaling and size of the blockchain and the limitations that entails. of course it is not the solution for everything  and it is not perfect but it is the best thing we can have and it will help the scaling of bitcoin so much that it opens up a lot of opportunities.

A long time ago it seemed like sidechains were going to be one of the biggest revolutions in Bitcoin. But they seemed to get quietly swept up under the rug at some point. I'm not really 100% sure why, but I remember Peter Todd apparently pointed out some big fundamental flaws in some of the ideas behind them. I could be wrong and have missed the fact that they are still on track in development though. Because this was a few years ago now I guess.

[pixie85]

that is exactly why the second layer solution was introduced.

with second layer such as Lightning Network you don't have to worry about things such as scaling and size of the blockchain and the limitations that entails. of course it is not the solution for everything  and it is not perfect but it is the best thing we can have and it will help the scaling of bitcoin so much that it opens up a lot of opportunities.

A long time ago it seemed like sidechains were going to be one of the biggest revolutions in Bitcoin. But they seemed to get quietly swept up under the rug at some point. I'm not really 100% sure why, but I remember Peter Todd apparently pointed out some big fundamental flaws in some of the ideas behind them. I could be wrong and have missed the fact that they are still on track in development though. Because this was a few years ago now I guess.

Many people are afraid that this will lead to centralization and companies taking over the nodes. I'm not worried about that as long as everything goes fast and smooth.
We could always increase the block size or decrease the time between blocks and become another version of bitcoin cash. I think the majority prefers second layer from a fork.